Where should I place my anger? (Bethesda/Sony)

[Dimitriov]

No one wants to hear this but you might blame yourself. Yeah the PS3 has some issues and yeah Bethesda should make their games work for all of their customers...

but I personally never had any doubts that it would be a steaming pile on the Playstation... it's just not the kind of game that you should buy for a console.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Blame Sony. Because I don't like their controllers.
Actually, blame yourself for not getting the PC versions.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

It's a problem with BOTH companies.

1. Sony's idiotic PS3 design splits its already pitifully low memory into two dedicated 256mb segments.
2. Bethesda's games are stupidly massive open worlds with tons of crap to interact with, meaning tons of crap that gets moved and has to be stored into its memory.

Normally, these two separate things are not a problem in of themselves, but, because of Sony's idiotic PS3 memory split design, and Bethesda's massive open worlds needing to store tons of data, Skyrim ends up quickly maxing out the PS3's stupidly low total of available memory. Had Sony not used such an idiotic design, the game would run fine. Which is why the game runs fine on the Xbox, because it's memory isn't split, and thus, Skyrim can't max it out.

HOWEVER, Bethesda SHOULD have been aware of this, and taken steps to rectify it BEFORE the game was released, but they they didn't, and they are idiots for not doing so and inconveniencing the customer.

Its a combination of Sony's dumb design move, and Bethesda not taking steps to work around the problem as much as they could from the get-go.

We can only pray the PS4 doesn't do the same thing.

This, and whoever designed the PS3 probably didn't expect this console generation drag on for 8 friggin years.

 

[Frezzato]

Spoiler: click to expand

I mostly play Bethesda published open world games on my PS3: Oblivion, Fallout 3, fallout: New Vegas, Skyrim.

Oblivion was made for the Xbox 360, was later ported to the PS3. Fallout 3 and New Vegas ran on that same engine, any push to the limits of the Xbox 360 designed engine caused both games such problems that they become unplayable. I want to enjoy both Fallout titles, again. However a few weeks ago I picked up my Fallout 3 game, and just made it out of the shelter and into the wastes (right outside the doors)when the games locked up on me. That is sorry. 2013 and I can not get 35 minutes into a game released as a port in 2008.

Skyrim, had a lot of problems, I was generally happy with it. I mainly bought it, honestly, as a demo for the new engine that I would see a Fallout game on. But possibly not with my current generation system.




This was edited due to me mistaking the release of Oblivion on the Xbox rather than the Xbox 360. The original is quoted in the post below. The truth took most of the steam out of my topic. I guess I place my anger on myself for trusting the old brain, and not double checking my facts.

I'm sure there has to be a fix for Fallout 3 because people have found ways to get Skyrim to run normally on PS3 (delete the patch/download it again and undo all autosave functions).

I will say this though, whatever problems there are, they have to be mostly Bethesda's fault. My friend bought Fallout New Vegas for 360 and I made a character on his machine. Started playing it and right at the point where you're following a girl and her dog in the very beginning, the game crashed. I didn't even get the chance to save my character. At that point I was done. It was good because it saved me $60 and a lot of headaches.

This comes after me playing Morrowind: my first playthrough (at 75% completion) was ruined on the original Xbox when all of my game saves started corrupting and were auto-deleted, one by one. I essentially played the game twice against my will. Then I ran into a bug in Oblivion (360) where I was locked out of finishing the Fighter's Guild storyline, just like what happened in Morrowind. I finished Morrowind but not Oblivion after that.

I suppose I should blame Michael Pachter a little. I remember a video of him talking about New Vegas prior to release, "This game is UNBREAKABLE! You can kill anyone you want!"

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

This, pretty much. Sony might have built the PS3 with some questionable design decisions, but plenty of devs have had multi-platform releases that ran fine.

Also, it's Bethesda, so their programmers basically get paid for how much work they don't do.

Other companies game only work fine because they aren't super massive open worlds where you can interact with everything.

The only games that get even close to skyrim, such as borderlands, only works becuase they are level based, and 90% of the gameworld is GTA cardbord items you cant interact with.

*companies'

Then Bethesda should have acted optimized it better. They couldn't have spent an eternity designing Skyrim without realizing that their choices in game design made for an unstable, choppy, and poorly saving game.

 

[Lilani]

Bethesda mostly but Sony should not allow buggy games like this to release on their system.

That...isn't how it works. Game consoles aren't very different from computers--the console is the hardware and OS, and game developers make the software (games). Sony has as much control over what games get made for the PS3 as Microsoft has over programs made for Windows. In other words, basically none.

 

[Epona]

Bethesda mostly but Sony should not allow buggy games like this to release on their system.

That...isn't how it works. Game consoles aren't very different from computers--the console is the hardware and OS, and game developers make the software (games). Sony has as much control over what games get made for the PS3 as Microsoft has over programs made for Windows. In other words, basically none.

BS, Sony has an approval process and they do have control over what is RELEASED on the PS3.

 

[Lilani]

BS, Sony has an approval process and they do have control over what is RELEASED on the PS3.

Are you sure about that? It seems sketchy to me. Do you have any sources that outline this process?

 

[Epona]

BS, Sony has an approval process and they do have control over what is RELEASED on the PS3.

Are you sure about that? It seems sketchy to me. Do you have any sources that outline this process?

No but that is just the way it's been done since Nintendo started with their "Seal of Approval". I have no reason to believe Sony just opens up the flood gates and lets anyone release anything on the PS3.

 

[Lilani]

No but that is just the way it's been done since Nintendo started with their "Seal of Approval". I have no reason to believe Sony just opens up the flood gates and lets anyone release anything on the PS3.

The Nintendo seal of quality is displayed on anything licensed to be used on a Nintendo product, but I can't find any sign Sony has anything like that for the Playstation. That may be the way Nintendo does it, but that doesn't necessarily mean Sony does it.

And even if they do it, it's obvious they're not going to harass a company like Bethesda for something like quality control. Skyrim was bound to make them piles of money regardless of what condition it was released onto the console in. I imagine the only time they would not approve a game is when it might get them some bad press (like "Child Molester Simulator" or something) or if they have an agreement with a larger company (something like "We'll give you a PS3 exclusive release to this game if you refuse to accept some game from some other company"). Don't forget how buggy as hell Red Dead Redemption was--that game was straight up comical at times.

 

[Epona]

No but that is just the way it's been done since Nintendo started with their "Seal of Approval". I have no reason to believe Sony just opens up the flood gates and lets anyone release anything on the PS3.

The Nintendo seal of quality is displayed on anything licensed to be used on a Nintendo product, but I can't find any sign Sony has anything like that for the Playstation. That may be the way Nintendo does it, but that doesn't necessarily mean Sony does it.

And even if they do it, it's obvious they're not going to harass a company like Bethesda for something like quality control. Skyrim was bound to make them piles of money regardless of what condition it was released onto the console in. I imagine the only time they would not approve a game is when it might get them some bad press (like "Child Molester Simulator" or something) or if they have an agreement with a larger company (something like "We'll give you a PS3 exclusive release to this game if you refuse to accept some game from some other company"). Don't forget how buggy as hell Red Dead Redemption was--that game was straight up comical at times.

Sony may not have a Seal on their boxes but you can bet they have an approval process and so does Microsoft. At the very least they need an approval process for security reasons (can't have games that open up security holes).

Your second paragraph is WHY Sony holds some of the blame. Oh BTW, it isn't harassment to send a game back to the developers to be debugged.

 

[Epona]

BS, Sony has an approval process and they do have control over what is RELEASED on the PS3.

Are you sure about that? It seems sketchy to me. Do you have any sources that outline this process?

No but that is just the way it's been done since Nintendo started with their "Seal of Approval". I have no reason to believe Sony just opens up the flood gates and lets anyone release anything on the PS3.

"I have no sources but this is how it is!" hahahah


Heres how it goes buddy; Sonus leases a development console or a couple to a game company, said company then signs an agreement promising Sony part of the profit of each game sold on their console. Thats where things end pretty much.

Blame Sony. Because I don't like their controllers.
Actually, blame yourself for not getting the PC versions.

Also /agree here.

Blame yourself for getting it on the PS3 OP!

Hey Buddy, do you have proof that there is no approval process?

 

[Signa]

Why not both? Sony marketed a "next gen system" back in 2005, and it's not capable of playing all the next gen games. Bethesda was stupid enough to try to make the game for the poorly designed system after building it from the ground-up for the Xbox and PC, thus making a faulty product, when they barely can make a solid one to begin with.

You could share a little blame for not buying the game on a PC, because history has shown that is the only reliable place to play The Elder Scrolls, but I wouldn't kick yourself too hard, because both Bethesda and Sony told you their product was OK to play on.

 

[Epona]

Sony marketed a "next gen system" back in 2005, and it's not capable of playing all the next gen games.

Just because Bethesda isn't competent enough to make their games run well on the PS3 doesn't mean that companies like Naughty Dog can't do it.

 

[Lilani]

Sony may not have a Seal on their boxes but you can bet they have an approval process and so does Microsoft. At the very least they need an approval process for security reasons (can't have games that open up security holes).

I'm calling this one a draw, just because neither of us has any proof.

Your second paragraph is WHY Sony holds some of the blame. Oh BTW, it isn't harassment to send a game back to the developers to be debugged.

It isn't exactly good for inter-company relations when Sony is being given what is equal to a giant pile of money and says, "No! Stop! Hold everything! Push back your release dates and prepare for a bunch of lost money and angry customers, there are a few too many bugs here for our liking."

If you're willing to take that as Sony being at fault for the game's quality then go ahead. All I'm saying is the quality of the game was never on the table to begin with when Bethesda went to Sony with their game. For a game as big as that, Sony's "Approval process," whatever it might be, is strictly a formality. Sony wouldn't dream of telling a game that big to shove off. Again, if there is an approval process, quality control isn't why it exists. It would only be to make sure there isn't a PS3 release of Gangbang Simulator VII.

 

[SadisticFire]

Yeah I think Sony is more at fault here due to how their system runs, rather then Besethda being lazy. I would say you're at fault, but I wouldn't look into a game that deep into until it was much to late myself either.

 

[Epona]

Yeah I think Sony is more at fault here due to how their system runs, rather then Besethda being lazy. I would say you're at fault, but I wouldn't look into a game that deep into until it was much to late myself either.

Sony is at fault because Bethesda makes buggy games? Only on PC can modders fix their shit.

 

[Signa]

Sony marketed a "next gen system" back in 2005, and it's not capable of playing all the next gen games.

Just because Bethesda isn't competent enough to make their games run well on the PS3 doesn't mean that companies like Naughty Dog can't do it.

You can't compare them, because Naughty Dog doesn't make games for other systems. We don't know what Uncharted would look like on the Xbox or the PC. They are also owned by Sony, so their company is used to working with the strange architecture of the PS3. That can't be expected of all the companies out there, so it's also part of Sony's fault for making the PS3 to be weird.

 

[Epona]

Sony marketed a "next gen system" back in 2005, and it's not capable of playing all the next gen games.

Just because Bethesda isn't competent enough to make their games run well on the PS3 doesn't mean that companies like Naughty Dog can't do it.

You can't compare them, because Naughty Dog doesn't make games for other systems. We don't know what Uncharted would look like on the Xbox or the PC. They are also owned by Sony, so their company is used to working with the strange architecture of the PS3. That can't be expected of all the companies out there, so it's also part of Sony's fault for making the PS3 to be weird.

You don't know what Uncharted would look like on the 360, for all you know the 360 can't run it at all.